Re: Authentification method on client side checking

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com>
Cc: Victor Drobny <v(dot)drobny(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Authentification method on client side checking
Date: 2017-07-10 01:17:11
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQOucf4_T9f8EJPm8pbWx6-G_zoLzTP0mQAA6oZxMuhVQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
<aht(at)8kdata(dot)com> wrote:
> Precisely yesterday I initiated a similar thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d4098ef4-2910-c8bf-f1e3-f178ba77c381%408kdata.com
>
> I think that a) the mere auth mechanism is not enough (channel binding
> or not, ssl or not, change a lot the effective security obtained) and b)
> maybe a categorization is a better way of specifying a connection security
> requirements.
>
> What's your opinion on this? Any answer should also be coordinated among
> the drivers.

Before rushing into implementing something that we may not want, let's
discuss the matter on the thread spawned by Álvaro and find an
agreement and a direction of implementation. I was planning to answer
your message with my own thoughts on the matter. Having more control
in libpq is definitely something that we should have.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2017-07-10 01:23:10 Re: replication_slot_catalog_xmin not explicitly initialized when creating procArray
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2017-07-10 01:14:05 Re: Fix header comment of streamutil.c